Japan employer federation boss says state, not Tepco, liable

[bananas]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hibq6mGI2oQ78jfXsFuj6G39rdDQ?docId=CNG.4ec0d644f5638e40f182b6d39cbee4b3.2c1

Japan employer federation boss says state, not Tepco, liable
By Dave Clark (AFP) – 21 hours ago

PARIS — The head of the Japanese employers' federation on Monday defended Tepco, owner of the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, saying the state and not the company should compensate disaster victims.

<snip>

Yonekura argued that Japan's Nuclear Power Generation Compensation Law has a proviso exempting reactor operators from responsibility in the event of "a disaster which cannot be usually imagined."

When the law passed, the then head of Japan's science and technology agency, future prime minister Yasuhiro Nakasone, told lawmakers an "unusual disaster" would be one roughly three times worse than the 1923 Kanto earthquake.

Yonekura claimed the March 11 quake plus tsunami was orders of magnitude greater than the earlier disaster.

He said the government's response had undermined global public support for nuclear power, and dismissed the idea that Tepco might have to be nationalised if it is not to collapse under the weight of compensation claims.

<snip>

I had to read this twice - the first time, I thought it said "employeEs federation", not "employeR".
Another example of privatize the profits, socialize the risk.

[MineralMan]

1. Passing the blame back and forth...

Typical. This thing will bring down the Japanese government, and throw Japan into a political mess for a very long time, I think. Everyone is to blame here, so there's no way to actually fix the blame. Those plants should never have been built. They were. Everyone involved in the process shares the blame, and that simply means a major shakeup.

[kristopher]

13. It is totally inappropriate to think this problem is limited to Japan.

The nub of your comment is that the balance of the risk/safety evaluation, by both the Japanese fission industry and it's regulators is weighted in favor of industry profits. I'd argue that the nature of the global nuclear industry is such that this is a pervasive, un-fixable problem everywhere. Nowhere is the industry actually subservient to the regulators. Instead the regulators and the industry are part and parcel of the same quasi-governmental profit motivated corporate entity that, by the nature of its corporate heart, will always tend to stretch the safety calculus in the direction of making a buck.

[FBaggins]

2. There's enough blame to go around.

The government certainly bears their share.

If you encourage a company to build a plant and tell them what standard it has to be built to... then you can't just point a finger at them when events exceed the standards that you gave them.

If the law truly says "disaster which cannot be usually imagined" then the construction code standard you created certainly provides evidence for what could or could not be "usually imagined".

This doesn't make it the government's "fault" (though their errors after the earthquake can certainly be placed there), it just makes it something the government has a responsibility to assist with (as with any disaster).

It also doesn't mean that "and not the company" makes any sense. If a tree falls on your car, it isn't your "fault", but you (or your insurance) will still take a financial hit. Again, "fault" and "responsibility" aren't the same thing. And, of course, the errors that the company made are not forced by mother nature either.

[kristopher]

3. Unless, as in fission's case, the industry tells the government what standards are appropriate

As you and your cronies have shown, the standard line within the fission industry is that everyone outside the fission industry who is the least bit critical of the technology is an irrational Luddite antinuker deserving character assassination and professional ruin.

Wait until people get a real feel for the way the fission industry has written the laws in the US.

[FBaggins]

4. If that were as true as you imagine... reactors would be much MUCH cheaper to build

You think all the rounds of "redesign that... it isn't good enough" are because the "industry" called for it?

It isn't the industry in Japan deciding what level of earthquake they should build to.

Now where it is able to twist things is when a standard is set and they find a way around it (as happened after the Kobe quake where some reactors are still not up to the new standards).

[kristopher]

5. You think regulators in the fission industry are more independent than in the petroleum industry

Aren't you quaint.

[FBaggins]

6. Nope... but they also aren't a subsidiary of the industry.

I note that you were unable to refute the simple facts I outlined.

The current AP1000 design is different from the ones that China is currently building because after the design was certified, they were forced to make some changes.

I can only assume that the changes are, in fact, warranted... but I can't imagine how you think the industry decided to do that to itself.

Your "petroleum industry" spin is a useful one. Do you think the industry told itself that offshore drilling must be stopped? Is it the industry trying to slow down fracking? Restricting ANWAR drilling?

[kristopher]

7. Your "facts" don't prove your case.

You are appealing to absolutes, as in, unless the regulator is actually the same entity as the business, then there is no problem.

That fails because the problem resides in degree of control. The "revolving door" between industry and regulators is a long recognized problem with governmental oversight of powerful corporate entities such as petroleum, pharma and yes, nuclear.

When was the last time an NRC commissioner critical of the role of nuclear was appointed?
Why is that the case?

When the NRC was notified of the oversight disaster that Davis Besse represents, why did they consult with the lobbying arm of the fission industry (Nuclear Energy Institute) BEFORE they notified the public of the problem?

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=687928&mesg_id=690952

http://www.flickr.com/photos/62193398@N02/5660300491/in/photostream


http://www.flickr.com/photos/62193398@N02/

[FBaggins]

8. Of course they do.

You are appealing to absolutes

Nope. I was merely disproving your absolute. there's a difference.

unless the regulator is actually the same entity as the business, then there is no problem.

I didn't say there was "no problem". I said that the government has their own share of the blame. Even if they were 100% bought and sold by the industry... they would STILl share the blame. It's their JOB. If they failed to do it... there's a problem.

I don't, however, think that's the case here. The earthquake design standards were reasonable. It's just the mother nature can occasionally be unreasonable.

The "revolving door" between industry and regulators is a long recognized problem with governmental oversight of powerful corporate entities such as petroleum, pharma and yes, nuclear.

Of course. And the same problem occurs in EVERY regulated industry (including solar/wind). It's a catch 22. You either have people who know the industry involved in regulating it (as potential conflict), or you have people regulating an industry that they know little about (a different, but equally dangerous, problem).

When the NRC was notified of the oversight disaster that Davis Besse represents, why did they consult with the lobbying arm of the fission industry (Nuclear Energy Institute) BEFORE they notified the public of the problem?

You've really got Besse on the brain, don't you? :)

[kristopher]

9. That is no more than evasion and rationalization.

But I don't expect you to do anything else. I've made my case.

[FBaggins]

10. So try answering one question.

If the government allows industry to control the regulatory schema for their own benefit...

...does the government bear no responsibility for the consequences of that failure to represent the interests of the people?

Yes. As usual. You "made your case"... and lost. :)

[kristopher]

11. The root of the corruption is in the industry's motives.

The government regulators have no inherent motive to *not* serve the public interest except the pressure brought to bear by the industries involved. That they have managed to rig the rules to absolve themselves of legal liability does nothing to elimitate their ethical role as perpetrators of the crime.

[FBaggins]

12. Was that even a "try"?

It isn't a difficult question.

The government regulators have no inherent motive to *not* serve the public interest

Oh please.

If that were true, how do you explain republicans???